While the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys have been locked in legal wrangling with the NFL office after being penalized for salary-cap violations during the uncapped season, not everyone has forgotten the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and a handful of other teams also took advantage of the lack of salary parameters in 2010.
The Bucs are one of a few teams that spent below the would-be salary floor in 2010, committing less than $100 million -- in some cases, much less -- to their payrolls that year. The NFL warned teams not to impact competitive balance by spending in excess of the usual spending limits created by the salary cap.
Dallas and Washington, according to the NFL, did. Both teams were penalized with massive reductions in their salary caps and soon will challenge the ruling before an arbitrator.
But did the Bucs and other teams also violate the spirit of the rules with their spending decisions? A case can be made they did on the basis of affecting competitive balance.
But today, here at the NFL owners meetings in Palm Beach, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell rejected the notion.
"No there was no issue there," he said. "(The question was) did any teams gain a competitive advantage. That was the focus that we and the (players union) had moving forward. That's why we reached an agreement . . . so no one had a long-term competitive advantage. That's what the NFLPA and we agreed on."
Adding a bit of intrigue was Tuesday's 29-0 vote by owners to support the league's actions against the Redskins and Cowboys. The missing three votes? The Redskins and Cowboys (who weren't permitted to participate) and, according to the Washington Post, the Bucs, who abstained.